What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

God in the story was commanding them to rape. God in real life, on the other hand, I don't believe ever did this.

As I said before, the OT God is portrayed through the filter of man, who wrote it. The OT was not written by God Himself, and so it is not infallible.

---

It is what the Church teaches.

So you don't think these stories are allegoric , you think these stories are just wrong?

I wouldn't say they are just "wrong". They're stories which I believe to be fictional, they can't be either right or wrong. The Church does not provide any interpretation for the majority of these, so I would say they do not play much of a role in forming the Catholic faith. Perhaps the only take away from these stories is that God has always been there, which is the one part of the stories that I believe is always true, even if God is not portrayed very accurately. Either way, this is not important to Catholicism.

How do you know which parts of the bible are right?

I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. When I want to know what the Church teaches on something, I don't dig though the bible to find the answers. I look to the Church, which has the Catechism, the Magisterium, etc. The bible, while important, is not the main pillar of our faith. I'd say the parts of the bible which tell the story of Jesus and His teachings is more relevant to our faith than some OT stories.

---

I'm siding with rexbecca here. If these infallible announcements are so rare - I think you said a dozen of them in two millennia? - what is the point of Il Papa the rest of the time? There's been many, many popes over the centuries; at the rate you suggest, they cannot all have been necessary to make such announcements. What were the others needed for?

For extra credit: what does it say about the 'holy spirit' that it requires a single mouthpiece to relay its "inspirations"?

Yes, less than a dozen.

Well, they are still the representatives of the faith. A religion with over 1 billion people can benefit from having one person to represent and guide the people. Even though infalliable pronouncements are rare, you never know when one will need to happen, and if/when this is the case, a pope will be there.

You mean why does it need to happen through a person verses just havng the voice sound from the sky for all to hear? I don't know. God thought it would be best this way, apparently. A theory that is widely accepted is that if God were to reveal Himself in such a concrete way again, He would be hated and resented by many people. Being more ambiguous allows people to simply not believe He exists, and this is a better alternative than knowing He does exist and hating Him. Having legitimate hatred for God is the one sure way of ending up in the one place where God is not present. Simply not believing that He is real leaves plenty of room for hope, IMHO. In my opinion, it's a way of protecting some of us from ourselves.

---

I have to say, if I was a Christian, or even a serious generic theist, I'd find the Pope the most offensive man on the planet. He's the nearest thing to a false god, and claims to speak for God, infallibly or otherwise. I would not like that.

All humans are fallible, so anyone claiming otherwise, even temporarily, is being ridiculous. How can we take his word for it? His fallible word.

You are not alone. Many Christians believe that Catholics are going to Hell for this reason.